In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Julien: if what you intend to say is "accepting the sponsorship was in line with community feedback", then I strongly disagree - the anger at last year's incident should have been an abundantly clear signal

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Julien: if what you intend to say is "accepting the sponsorship was in line with community feedback", then I strongly disagree - the anger at last year's incident should have been an abundantly clear signal

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Théophane: thanks, appreciated. could you clarify what you are thinking of re: "consensus" (as definitions often vary) and, assuming that it may take some time to reach one, what the standing policy would be in the interim?

Honestly: I don't know. My dream would be that we have a broad community consensus (as in: “everyone agrees that it's a good tradeoff between the different opinions”), but that's gonna be hard.

For the interim, something that has been raised a few times here and is probably a great (if painful for the organizers) is to publish a tentative sponsors list in advance so that people can raise issues in advance.

In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net

Honestly: I don't know. My dream would be that we have a broad community consensus (as in: “everyone agrees that it's a good tradeoff between the different opinions”), but that's gonna be hard.

For the interim, something that has been raised a few times here and is probably a great (if painful for the organizers) is to publish a tentative sponsors list in advance so that people can raise issues in advance.

I personally don't feel that a broad community consensus is currently possible, at least - I have been involved in some efforts to that end, and it has become clear to me that we do not have a universal set of values across the community currently. maybe in the future that would be viable, but I expect that an attempt at 'total consensus' would currently stall.

regarding a tentative sponsors list as an interim: I cannot speak for others, of course, but personally I feel that that could work, as long as it is accompanied by a commitment that serious objections will be honoured. this is not perfect, but at least an improvement over the current situation.

one other option I can think of would be to frame it in terms of 'safety'; if there are people who consider the involvement of a sponsor a community safety problem (as is clearly the case in this instance, for example), for that to be sufficient grounds to reject the sponsor, even if that is not necessarily a majority view. this is again not perfect, but a significant improvement over the current situation

In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net
Also: the local NixCon (or other events) organizers have a say. I guess that for instance the next NixCon EU team will have strict policies any way. Which I hope should be acceptable for everyone (they organise it, it's their right to refuse sponsors af they don't think they are a fit)

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would agree that organizers should generally be free to reject sponsors as they see fit. I would not extend that to the freedom to permit sponsors as they see fit, though, at least not as long as the conference is presented as a (semi-)official NixOS event, like is the case for NixCon

In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net
joepie91 🏳️‍🌈: what do you mean by "safety"?

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would normally refer to a Code of Conduct defining that more clearly, but in our case we do not really have a CoC that does this to begin with, so that doesn't really work here. this is a difficult thing to define on the spot since it relies on a contextual understanding of what creates unsafe environments for people (marginalized folks in particular) that I'm not sure can be assumed here. I believe that there is a proposal to engage an outside expert on matters of community safety, and although I'm not familiar with the contents of their trainings, I expect that they will be able to convey a workable definition of 'community safety' for this purpose

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I can attempt to define what I, specifically, mean by 'community safety', of course, but I expect that that will end up being quite a lengthy conversation and I'm probably not the only one who wants to say things here :p

In reply to @aleksana:mozilla.org
The question is, who is included in the consensus? The foundation team? The people who contributed to NixOS organization? The people who have a discourse account? The people in this group or matrix space?